On Tue, 17 Sept 2024 at 15:01, Inbal Levi <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thank you, Jonathan! > Adding chair for today (Fabio) and co-chairs as FYI. > > > We also haven't got a decision on what to do with the new math and > numerics stuff in C23. > True. I see the new utils are not added as part of your paper, so we can > move forward with the paper today. We'll get back to that when we have > SG4's input. > I'll ping Mattias (I thought I did, but must have forgotten to..) > > > LEWG should decide whether to incorporate <stdckint.h> as-is if we're > not going to have something like it in time for C++26 (0). (from document) > > C++ has no equivalent currently, but we probably don’t want > type-generic macros like C has. (from P3348R0) > > For stdckdint.h we're not going to use the C header, so should not > define the C macro. > > I was referring to this as an open question, as it wasn't voted on yet, > but I know your paper doesn't propose adding it. > I (personally) agree that having this in C++ shape is better (and we might > need a follow-up paper for that), and that it's probably better to have > nothing in 26 than adding the C shape. > Might be worth bringing up in LEWG (and if they do ask to add the C shape > as well, then figure out what to do). > P3370 already has the macro, so I don't think we need to figure out what to do if LEWG do want it. I assume the motivation for adding it was so mixed C/C++ headers can use the same macro to check for the features whether the header is compiled as C or C++/ > > > If it is (in C++ shape), it should be in the __cpp_lib_xxx form. > Sure, makes sense. Thanks :) > > *See you soon!* > > > Best Regards, > Inbal Levi > > ISO C++ LEWG Chair & Israeli NB Chair > C++Now Program Chair & CoreC++ Conference Organizer > > > On Tue, 17 Sept 2024 at 15:59, Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 17 Sept 2024 at 13:52, Inbal Levi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello SG10, >>> We're in the process of rebasing C++ on C (we will see a paper today) >>> and wanted your input on what to do with the C macros: >>> https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/23 >>> (e.g __STDC_VERSION_STDCKDINT_H__ >>> <https://en.cppreference.com/mwiki/index.php?title=STDC_VERSION_STDCKDINT_H&action=edit&redlink=1> >>> , __STDC_VERSION_FENV_H__ <https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/numeric/fenv> >>> might >>> be relevant) >>> >>> IIUC, we don't port these? >>> >> >> It's never been a question before, C17 didn't have any such macros. >> They're new in C23. >> >> >> >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Standard-Predefined-Macros.html#Standard-Predefined-Macros-1 >>> >> >> I don't think that document is relevant, those macros are defined by >> library headers not the compiler. >> >> >>> >>> Should we consider redefining them in the __cplusplus shape? >>> >> >> The macro for <fenv.h> comes from a C header, and the C++ library doesn't >> add anything to that header. I don't see any point in the C++ library >> requiring new macros for a header that isn't controlled by the C++ >> implementation. We also haven't got a decision on what to do with the new >> math and numerics stuff in C23. >> >> For stdckdint.h we're not going to use the C header, so should not define >> the C macro. The proposal to add a C++ version of that header should >> consider whether a feature test macro is needed. If it is, it should be in >> the __cpp_lib_xxx form. >> >
-- SG10 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
